Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
I'm a writer, and I've always wanted to write for/direct a game...
Whatcha reckon?

Have you tried this? --> View Forum FAQ (above)

I don't understand why people are having such a hard time understanding my question. Even after I explicitly state it. Either people aren't bothering to read the whole thread, or they are reading the whole thread, and consciously deciding to go off-topic just to crush the new guy's naivety. I'm not sure which is more irritating.

Quote: I personally resent that since I worked on two of those titles.

I'm sure you did an awesome job (not sarcasm). But the Harry Potter games are pretty widely considered average at best. If you want things sugar-coated, evidently you're in the wrong industry, because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of sugar-coating floating around here :P But y'know, it's a billion times better than any game I've ever made, so it's not like I'm trying to personally offend you. And if you did the best you could, you shouldn't worry about what other people think.

Quote: That's how ridiculous your dream sounds. Some people still win in lotteries, so it's not impossible, if that's any comfort.

Nobody has ever caused world peace. So based on precedent, that is highly unlikely. On the other hand, folk publish novels every day. Really not that unheard-of.

People have this idea that fame is either inherently unattainable, or owed to them. It's always one extreme or the other: spoiled brats who think they're entitled to be rich and famous, or sullen cynics who believe they'll remain anonymous no matter what they do. One tries, fails, bursts their bubble and gives up, the other never even tries in the first place, inventing excuses to make themselves feel better.

The truth is, fame is like anything else. It's like working out in the gym: you dedicate enough time and effort, and you'll see results. It's really just a matter of getting out there, befriending the right people, impressing the right audience and being in the right place at the right time. You might call that luck, but that's really being a lot more naive than anything I've said.



Anyway, for like the fifth time, I'm fully aware of the difficulties involved. I'm just asking, what would you do if you owned the exclusive rights to make a game based on an upcoming Hollywood movie?

Is it really so hard to consider a simple thought exercise?

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
But anyway, like I said, forget me. You say the plan isn't plausible. Why, specifically?

As I already said above. You want to be in Industry A. Industry A is hard to get into and industry B is also hard to get into. Deciding to get into industry A by becoming successful in industry B (which is just as hard to get into) is dumb because if you do get into B that wont automatically translate into a route into A.

You are basically adding more layers of complexity to the process thus reducing the chance of it succeeding and also making sure that it takes at least as long, if not longer, than it would do just to break into games and work your way up to the position you want to be in.

Quote: Maybe if I phrased the question differently.
Let's say someone owns the rights to make a video game out of the upcoming movie..... what does that person do now? (Let's say they want to be heavily involved in the game's story and design)

You get your agent to negotiate the deal so that you get creative input into the game script. Of course that presupposes that you own the rights, which is highly unlikely and even if you did there is still no guarantee that a game publisher would actually agree to the terms.

Conclusion
Doing something that doesn't actually lead where you want to go, is less likely to succeed and more complex/time consuming along the way is, by any measure, a bad idea.

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
what would you do if you owned the exclusive rights to make a game based on an upcoming Hollywood movie?

I would hire an agent to sell them to the highest-bidding game publisher.
Now that you know my answer to the question you asked, do you have a follow-up question, or want to rephrase the question? What is it you're really trying to find out (why do you ask this question -- what will you do when you get the answer)?

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
Anyway, for like the fifth time, I'm fully aware of the difficulties involved. I'm just asking, what would you do if you owned the exclusive rights to make a game based on an upcoming Hollywood movie?

Cherry pick a publisher and/or developer that gives me the most money/highest royalties and has a track record of completing the project on time.

That is the crux why a lot of licensed games (and even non-licensed) are average, because of the timescale and budget to complete the whole project. If every game had an infinite budget and timescale, then in theory any game wouldn't be released until it was 'good'.

Also, in most cases, the license holders do have to okay the game design and content before allowing release so if they don't like something, then can force the developer/publisher to change it.

Quote: Sayeth JJE:
my plan was always to (1) write a popular novel, (2) sell the film rights, and (3) use that money to hire a team of the most talented (4) amateurs I can find (hopefully most of 'em being so starstruck by my presence they'll be easy to swindle -- eh, I mean "convince" :P ). That way I can (5) maintain creative control of the entire process

Personally, I think if you can manage #1 well enough that #2 becomes feasible, then you've got a lucrative career right there. Why would you then need to do #3? And if you're so rich, why is #4 necessary in order to accomplish #5?

If you can become a Crichton or Rowling or Grisham or Clancy, isn't that enough of a great life right there?
To do that just so you can become a game director or movie director (whatever) seems kind of roundabout.

And I do not like your #4. Taking advantage of amateurs is not laudable. It's also not necessary. Since you're a world-famous author, if you want creative control over games made from your IP, just make that a requirement of the license agreement.
Hiring amateurs to make your game is a great way to waste a lot of time and money. Not to mention all the headache and stomach medicine you'll be needing. Hire pros instead.

Quote: Original post by Obscure
Conclusion
Doing something that doesn't actually lead where you want to go, is less likely to succeed and more complex/time consuming along the way is, by any measure, a bad idea.

Again, you're reading too much into my question. And putting words in my mouth.

Like I said: I want to be a novelist first and foremost. But I have an extremely broad range of interests, and love to try new things. So, along with writing a novel, I'd also like to try to make a game, at some point in my life. If you've ever noticed, once people get famous enough, the world pretty much opens up to them doing whatever they want. There are people who have been universally successful as novelists, actors, directors, TV presenters, models, radio hosts, screenwriters, playwrights, stage performers, voice actors, comedians, musicians and political activists, all over the course of about 20 years. (Stephen Fry comes to mind, and obviously he didn't work his way to the top in every single individual profession)

So it is where I want to go, and is just as likely as any other dreams of grandeur. As for the complexity/time-consumption part, what's the rush? Making games, writing books, careers in general, it's all really just killing time until you die, to be perfectly logical. Death is inevitable, after all, and there's no evidence to suggest that personal wealth will matter after you die. You could argue that your massive inheritance may secure the survival of your offspring, but after a certain point you're just removing all the character-building opportunities in your family's life. So, really, my goal is to consume as much of my time with interesting stuff as I can.

Quote: I would hire an agent to sell them to the highest-bidding game publisher.

Quote: Cherry pick a publisher and/or developer that gives me the most money/highest royalties and has a track record of completing the project on time.

Those are both interesting responses. I assumed on a site called 'gamedev.net', that most folk would be aspiring or current game developers. Why wouldn't you want to take a stab at making the game yourself? Unless you're saying you'd sell off the IP with the stipulation that'd you'd be involved in the design process. In which case, how much control would you want? Would you rather play it safe, and ensure you get paid as much as possible, or take risks and be as creative as possible? Is that viable, or more than likely to result in 'development hell'?

Quote: Personally, I think if you can manage #1 well enough that #2 becomes feasible, then you've got a lucrative career right there. Why would you then need to do #3? And if you're so rich, why is #4 necessary in order to accomplish #5?

Lucrative shmucrative. I'm way more interested in doing as many interesting things as possible than dying with a mountain of gold in the bank. Not to mention that writing novels can conveniently be done in one's spare time, leaving room for a normal career.

Also, I was thinking that around the time of #4 (the swindling part being a joke :P), I wouldn't be "world-famous". It'd be a situation closer to say, that Christopher Paolini guy (author of that crappy Eragon book). Paolini isn't exactly a household name (least not so much in Ireland), but he's sold 20 million copies of his series, and the film adaptation made about $250 million (even though it was spectacularly shite, which shows even more how dedicated a fanbase the dude's got).

Despite that, I mean, the kid ain't poor, but I doubt he could finance his own professional game development team. (And by professional, I mean people who want money up front, and are used to doing things over and over in a particular way). When I say "hire amateurs", I dunno, I've always envisioned under-appreciated geniuses who would be so excited and motivated to work on a major project they'd practically do it for free.

Maybe I'm just used to the literary world, where the best writers go unnoticed by editors and publishers because the average reader just wants to buy trash. But I always thought that if I was hiring a team, I'd hit the proverbial streets, looking for raw fresh talent (and probably a few pros to work as consultants, to make sure things didn't get too messy).

I mean, the greatest geniuses tend to be fragile and reclusive. And their talent gets wasted because they're misunderstood, or simply too full of self-doubt to actually pursue their dreams. How often to you see some random dude in a forum or whatever do something that's just as good or better as a properly-funded team of 'professionals'? I'd love to be one of those mysterious people who shows up out of nowhere and opens a suitcase of money and asks "you want a job?", and they're like "who are you?" and I'm like "just a fan."

[Edited by - James Joseph Emerald on March 28, 2010 8:10:18 PM]

Even hypothetically, what you are suggesting is downright wrong. You are suggesting that you can underpay amateurs (talented or no) just because they do not have established credentials - don't you see anything wrong with that?

If they were, as you say, undiscovered talents then they are just as entitled to proper wages as any professional. That aside, how did you ever expect any amounts of amateurs performing to spec? The biggest difference between an amateur and a professional is just that they aren't accustomed to tight deadlines and harsh hours.

No, the only way to do this would be with A) professionals who are used to this kind of work, B) amateurs that are properly compensated (full wages, that is) or C) an indie team with virtually full-control on all major aspects of the game.

Most others won't function beyond theory. Of course, this is all just throwing shit out an airlock since all you wanted us to do is entertain the notion of a large string of events each unlikely in it's own right happening one after another....

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
Again, you're reading too much into my question. And putting words in my mouth

No I'm not, let me quote back your own words....

Quote: I'm a writer, and I've always wanted to write for/direct a game.

This is what you told us your aim is.

Quote: So, my plan was always to write a popular novel, sell the film rights, and use that money to hire a team of the most talented amateurs I can find (hopefully most of 'em being so starstruck by my presence they'll be easy to swindle -- eh, I mean "convince" :P ). That way I can maintain creative control of the entire process, and the buzz from the movie would be like a massive, big-budget Hollywood advertisement campaign that I wouldn't pay a penny for. If the movie does decently enough in the box office, I could make the most experimental, ground-breaking indie game ever, and publishers would still be desperate to sign it on.

This is how you intend to achieve that aim and you asked if it was a good plan. It isn't a good plan for the reasons I have already explained.

If the above wasn't really your aim or your plan to achieve it then you should have told us what your real aim was. We can only answer the questions you asked, not the one you meant to ask.

Quote: Like I said: I want to be a novelist first and foremost.

Well that is a different matter then. Follow your passion, focus on becoming an author. The chance of success is slim but if that is what you are passionate about then put all your energy into that. Don't get distracted over what you might do in the future IF you are successful. That will just dilute your passion. Put all your efforts into getting that first success. Once you have that then you can build on it.

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald

Quote: I would hire an agent to sell them to the highest-bidding game publisher.

Quote: Cherry pick a publisher and/or developer that gives me the most money/highest royalties and has a track record of completing the project on time.

Those are both interesting responses. I assumed on a site called 'gamedev.net', that most folk would be aspiring or current game developers. Why wouldn't you want to take a stab at making the game yourself?

We would, but your not asking about us, you are asking what you should do. What game developers should do in this situation is very different from what an author, who has no game development experience, should do.

Obviously if you become the next JK Rowling then you can afford to fund your own development company, have total control and do what you want. However, if you need a publisher to fund the project then there is no way they are going to give you total control and allow you to make the wackiest indie game ever. That simply isn't why game publishers license IP. They do it because the IP is already established in the mainstream psyche and will be an easy sell. They want a mainstream game to appeal to that established audience. They also wont give control over a $10-20 million dollar project to someone with no game development experience.



[Edited by - Obscure on March 28, 2010 10:23:19 PM]

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
I don't understand why people are having such a hard time understanding my question. Even after I explicitly state it. Either people aren't bothering to read the whole thread, or they are reading the whole thread, and consciously deciding to go off-topic just to crush the new guy's naivety. I'm not sure which is more irritating.

...

Anyway, for like the fifth time, I'm fully aware of the difficulties involved. I'm just asking, what would you do if you owned the exclusive rights to make a game based on an upcoming Hollywood movie?

Is it really so hard to consider a simple thought exercise?

You know, in the future, if you find that several people are all misunderstanding your words and responding to questions you didn't think you had asked, you might want to consider the possibility that the communication fault lies with you.

Really, what are the odds that half a dozen individuals would all "misinterpret" you the same way (even deliberately!), versus the odds that maybe your question wasn't as clear cut as you thought?

In any case, I've reread the thread a couple of times now and nowhere is it clear to me that the bolded question in the quote is what you were actually trying to find out.

These are the questions I see you asking:

Quote: Think it'll work?

I'm not the first person ever to think of making an indie game based on his/her own intellectual property (after it's been picked up by a Hollywood studio), am I? Are there any examples of this happening?

It might be hard to retain video game rights through all the negotiations. Think it would be a dealbreaker with most film companies?

In fact, the point of the thread was to discuss my ridiculously optimistic hypothetical idea. It's a thought exercise, in which we pretend that I'm already famous and talented, and am recruiting a team of artists and coders to help me with a project. It's not about me personally, it's about a precedent for something like that happening. i.e. Is there one?

Let's say someone owns the rights to make a video game out of the upcoming movie "Kick-Ass", which has been receiving overwhelmingly positive reviews. Now, give it to EA and it'll probably come out as a rushed, crappy, soulless "beat-em-up". So, given that the movie will pretty much guarantee the game will turn a profit (and so there's plenty of funding on hand), what does that person do now? (Let's say they want to be heavily involved in the game's story and design)

Maybe the last question is close enough; but even still, you didn't ask that until late in the thread. It certainly wasn't clear that that's what you wanted to know from the original post.

Quote: Original post by James Joseph Emerald
Despite that, I mean, the kid ain't poor, but I doubt he could finance his own professional game development team. (And by professional, I mean people who want money up front, and are used to doing things over and over in a particular way). When I say "hire amateurs", I dunno, I've always envisioned under-appreciated geniuses who would be so excited and motivated to work on a major project they'd practically do it for free.

Exploiting people that way is pretty sick.

It's also a great way to produce a bad product. If you want quality, hire proven professionals.

Quote: Maybe I'm just used to the literary world, where the best writers go unnoticed by editors and publishers because the average reader just wants to buy trash. But I always thought that if I was hiring a team, I'd hit the proverbial streets, looking for raw fresh talent (and probably a few pros to work as consultants, to make sure things didn't get too messy).

I daresay you're far too used to the literary world (if indeed that world actually functions anything remotely close to what you describe - from your tone it sounds like you have a lot of bitterness to work through).

"Raw fresh talent" doesn't exist. Even if it did, there's no way to detect it. The way you find good people - in any field - is by examining their history. Truly talented people will either have a large repertoire of work they can point to as an indication of their skills, or they will be well along the way to developing one. The idea of finding some lonely, abandoned orphan and discovering he's some kind of genius that rocks the face of modern culture is a bullshit myth concocted by movie makers and pulp fiction writers.

Quote: I mean, the greatest geniuses tend to be fragile and reclusive. And their talent gets wasted because they're misunderstood, or simply too full of self-doubt to actually pursue their dreams.

Where do you get this "data"? I know a lot of damned smart people who are far from socially maladjusted, and their talent is certainly not going to waste. Self-doubt is also rarely a problem.

Again, beware of conflating Hollywood with real life.

Quote: How often to you see some random dude in a forum or whatever do something that's just as good or better as a properly-funded team of 'professionals'?

I've certainly never seen it.

There are some people floating around GDNet who are incredibly good, and are functioning on a shoestring budget. So I'm not saying there's nobody out there who is a total whiz at game development.

But "better" than a properly funded team of professionals? Are you joking? Even from a sheer workload perspective, a well-run team will run circles around any individual, simply because they represent more man-hours per day.


All told... I think you've got some serious attitude issues (your lack of respect for other people's work shows through quite strongly in your posts) and more than a little naivete with regards to how real-world products are developed.

That's not intended to be a personal slight, just an observation. But you might consider working on those areas, because I foresee them causing a lot of friction between you and potential coworkers in the future.